Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation

Candidate Genes and Effects of Auditory Deprivation in the Critical Period on the Expression of Genes and Molecules in Auditory Processing Disorder.

Document Type : Review Article

Authors
Y Lotfi
M Shaabani
H Arbab Sarjoo
Department of Audiology, University of Rehabilitation Sciences and Social Health, Tehran, Iran
10.22038/jpsr.2024.75288.2555
Abstract
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to examine the studies of candidate genes in auditory processing disorder and studies of the effect of auditory deprivation in the critical period on the expression of genes and protein molecules and to determine the type and location of damage and the nature of auditory processing disorder.
Method:
In this review article, the words "genes and auditory processing disorder" and "auditory deprivation and auditory processing disorder" had searched in "Google Scholar" and "Science Direct"," pubmed ,"web of science" databases in the years 2000 to 2023.
Results:
After searching in Google Scholar and Science Direct and pubmed and web of science databases, 16 related and new articles were found and investigated.
Conclusion:
α2δ3 protein and kcna1 and pax6 genes are known as samples effective molecules in auditory processing disorder. Auditory deprivation in the critical period by changing the expression of GABA and glutamate receptor genes causes defects in hearing behaviors without affecting hearing thresholds. Identifying proteins and molecules effective in auditory processing disorder can be a way to diagnose auditory processing disorder.
Keywords
Auditory perceptual disorders
Sensory deprivation
Gene candidate
Mutation
  1. De Wit E, Visser-Bochane MI, Steenbergen B, Van Dijk P, et al. Characteristics of auditory processing disorders: A systematic review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59(2): 384-413.
  2. Moore DR. Auditory processing disorder (APD)—Potential contribution of mouse research. Brain Res 2006; 1091(1): 200-206.
  3.  Dolphin AC. Voltage‐gated calcium channels and their auxiliary subunits: physiology and pathophysiology and pharmacology. J Physiol 2016; 594(19): 5369-5390.
  4. Pirone A, Kurt S, Zuccotti A, Rüttiger L,et al. α2δ3 is essential for normal structure and function of auditory nerve synapses and is a novel candidate for auditory processing disorders. J Neurosci 2014; 34(2): 434-445.
  5. Simons-Weidenmaier NS, Weber M, Plappert CF, Pilz PK, et al. Synaptic depression and short-term habituation are located in the sensory part of the mammalian startle pathway. BMC neuroscience. 2006; 38(7):1-13.
  6. Bracic G, Hegmann K, Engel J, Kurt S. Impaired subcortical processing of amplitude-modulated tones in mice deficient for Cacna2d3, a risk gene for autism spectrum disorders in humans. eNeuro 2022; 9(2): 1-13.
  7. Guda P, Bourne PE, Guda C. Conserved motifs in voltage-sensing and pore-forming modules of voltage-gated ion channel proteins. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2007; 352(2): 292-298.
  8. Allen PD, Ison JR. Kcna1 gene deletion lowers the behavioral sensitivity of mice to small changes in sound location and increases asynchronous brainstem auditory evoked potentials but does not affect hearing thresholds. J Neurosci. 2012; 32(7): 2538-2543.
  9. Thompson B, Davidson EA, Liu W, Nebert DW, et al. Overview of PAX gene family: analysis of human tissue-specific variant expression and involvement in human disease. Hum Genet 2021; 140(1): 381-400.
  10. Bamiou DE, Free SL, Sisodiya SM, Chong WK, et al.   Auditory   interhemispheric   transfer   deficits, hearing difficulties, and brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities in children with congenital aniridia due to PAX6 mutations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007; 161(5): 463-469.
  11. Bobilev AM, Hudgens-Haney ME, Hamm JP, Oliver WT, et al. Early and late auditory information processing show opposing deviations in aniridia. Brain Research 2019; 1720: 146307.
  12. Marianowski R, Liao WH, Van Den Abbeele T, Fillit P, et al. Expression of NMDA, AMPA and GABAA receptor subunit mRNAs in the rat auditory brainstem. I. Influence of early auditory deprivation. Hear Res 2000; 150(1-2): 1-11.
  13. Paoletti P, Neyton J. NMDA receptor subunits: function and pharmacology. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2007; 7(1): 39-47.
  14. Kamalova A, Nakagawa T. AMPA receptor structure and auxiliary subunits. J Physiol. 2021; 599(2): 453-469.
  15. Ghit A, Assal D, Al-Shami AS, Hussein DE. GABAA receptors: structure, function, pharmacology, and related disorders. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 2021; 19(1): 123
  16. Qi Y, Yu S, Du Z, Qu T, et al. Long-term conductive auditory deprivation during early development causes irreversible hearing impairment and cochlear synaptic disruption. Neurosci 2019; 406: 345-355.
  17. Zhou M, Yuan J, Yan Z, Dai J, et al. Intrinsic and miniature postsynaptic current changes in rat principal neurons of the lateral superior olive after unilateral auditory deprivation at an early age. Neurosci 2020; 428: 2-12.
  18. Gillespie DC, Kim G, Kandler K. Inhibitory synapses in the developing auditory system are glutamatergic. Nat Neurosci 2005; 8(3): 332-338.
  19. Bi C, Cui Y, Mao Y, Dong S, et al. The effect of early auditory deprivation on the age-dependent expression pattern of NR2B mRNA in rat auditory cortex. Brain Res 2006; 1110(1): 30-38.
  20.  Lu J, Cui Y, Cai R, Mao Y, et al. Early auditory deprivation alters expression of NMDA receptor subunit NR1 mRNA in the rat auditory cortex. J Neurosci Res 2008; 86(6): 1290-1296.
  21. Mishra SK, Dey R. Unilateral auditory deprivation in humans: Effects on frequency discrimination and auditory memory span in the normal ear. Hear Res 2021;405: 108245.
  22. Truong DT, Che A, Rendall AR, Szalkowski CE, et al. Mutation of Dcdc2 in mice leads to impairments in auditory processing and memory ability. Genes, Brain and Behavior 2014; 13(8): 802-811.
  23. Centanni TM, Booker AB, Chen F, Sloan AM, et al. Knockdown of dyslexia-gene Dcdc2 interferes with speech sound discrimination in continuous streams. J Neurosci 2016; 36(17): 4895-4906.
  24. Guidi LG, Mattley J, Martinez-Garay I, Monaco AP, et al. Knockout mice for dyslexia susceptibility gene homologs KIAA0319 and KIAA0319L have unaffected neuronal migration but display abnormal auditory processing. Cereb Cortex 2017; 27(12):5831-5845.
  25. Müller B, Schaadt G, Boltze J, Emmrich F, et al. ATP 2C2 and DYX 1C1 are putative modulators of dyslexia-related MMR. Brain Behav 2017;7(11):1-12.
  26. Rendall AR, Perrino PA, Buscarello AN, Fitch RH. Shank3B mutant mice display pitch discrimination enhancements and learning deficits. Int. J Dev Neurosci 2019; 72(1):13-21.
  27. Kurt S, Groszer M, Fisher SE, Ehret G. Modified sound-evoked brainstem potentials in Foxp2 mutant mice. Brain Res 2009; 1289(1): 30-36.
  28. Kurioka T, Mogi S, Yamashita T. Transient conductive hearing loss regulates cross-modal VGLUT expression in the cochlear nucleus of C57BL/6 mice. Brain Sci 2020; 10(5): 260.
  29. Kopp-Scheinpflug C, Tempel BL. Decreased temporal precision of neuronal signaling as a candidate mechanism of auditory processing disorder. Hear Res 2015; 330(Pt B): 213-220.
  30. Dawes P, Bishop DV, Sirimanna T, Bamiou DE. Profile and aetiology of children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder (APD). Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72(4): 483-489.
  31. Lotfi Y, Moossavi A, Afshari PJ, Bakhshi E, et al. Spectro-temporal modulation detection and its relation to speech perception in children with auditory processing disorder. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 131: 109860.
  32. Lotfi Y, Kargar S, Javanbakht M, Biglarian A. Development, validity and reliability of the Persian version of the consonant-vowel in white noise test. J Rehabil Sci Res 2016; 3(2): 29-34.
  33. Rezapour M, Abdollahi FZ, Delphi M, Lotfi Y, et al. Normalization and reliability evaluation of persian version of two-pair dichotic digits in 8 to 12-year-old children. IRJ. 2016; 14(2): 115-120. [Persian]
  34. Moossavi A, Lotfi Y, Javanbakht M, Faghihzadeh S. Speech-evoked auditory brainstem response; electrophysiological evidence of upper brainstem facilitative role on sound lateralization in noise. J Neurol Sci 2020; 41(1): 611-617.
  35. Moossavi A, Jafari Z, Lotfi Y, Malayeri S, et al. Correlation between Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response and Gap in Noise Tests in 8-12 Year-Old Children with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2017; 6(4): 23-230.
  36. Abdollahi FZ, Lotfi Y, Moosavi A, Bakhshi E. Binaural interaction component of middle latency response in children suspected to central auditory processing disorder. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 71(2): 182-185.
  37. Arbab sarjoo H, Moossavi A, Javanbakht M, Bakhsh E, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of Persian version of the quick speech in noise test in Persian speaking 18-25 years old normal adults. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research 2016; 3(3): 51-56.
  38. Lotfi Y, Moossavi A, Javanbakht M, Zadeh SF. Speech-ABR in contralateral noise: A potential tool to evaluate rostral part of the auditory efferent system. Med Hypotheses 2019; 132: 109355.
  39. Lotfi Y, Nazeri AR, Asgari A, Moosavi A, et al. Iranian version of speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale: a psychometric study. Acta Med Iran 2016; 54(12): 756-764.
Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 13, Issue 3
Summer 2024
Pages 80-92